HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 7, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Peter Adams

The Clerk of the Committee

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Clerk

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Á

1120

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Clerk

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Clerk

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Á

1125

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Á

1130

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher)

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. James Robertson

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

An hon. member

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Á

1145

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Á

1150

Mr. James Robertson

Á

1155

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. James Robertson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston)

Mr. James Robertson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston)

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Ms. Margaret Young

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston)

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston)

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Â

1200

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. James Robertson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston)

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston)

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston)

Mr. Michel Guimond

M. James Robertson

Â

1205

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 006

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, perhaps we could begin.

    You all have the agenda. The main item of business is in fact the briefing on the steering committee's advice with respect to how to deal with the ethics package.

    Before that, I'm going to say to you I have decided to resign as chair.

    Voices: Hear, hear.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I want to very briefly explain why I'm doing this.

    As you know, I voted against the motion in the House, even though I introduced our report on concurrence. I have my own views on these matters. I try to operate as chair as effectively as I can. Nevertheless, I do, believe it or not, have my own views.

    However, even though this committee has been established and we ran through prorogation, and even though under the old system I was very pleased to be re-elected as your chair, I think that because we are the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and because the concurrence motion I gave was a report of this, and we initiated the changes that occurred, I feel obliged to resign.

    I'm going to step aside and I'm going to ask the clerk to conduct an election in the new fashion for chair. As of this moment, I am no longer the chair.

    I resign, Thomas.

    Our clerk, Thomas, is in charge of the meeting.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Is Thomas allowed to take points of order?

    Mr. Peter Adams: No.

    Sorry, I should have recognized you earlier. Don't hold it against me.

    The Clerk of the Committee: There being no chair, the first duty of the committee is to elect a chair.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I'd like to nominate Peter Adams.

    The Clerk: Mrs. Parrish, please.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I specifically left a meeting to come here to nominate Peter Adams.

    The Clerk: It is seconded by Mr. Johnston.

    Are there any other nominations?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Colleagues, I thank you very much. I thought it was the appropriate thing to do.

    We have a point of order from Dale Johnston and then a point of order from Yvon Godin.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, for similar reasons to the ones you stated, and perhaps as a leap of faith in the electorate around this table, I, too, wish to resign my seat as the vice-chair.

    The Chair: Okay, I hear you.

    We have to go back to you then, do we?

    The Clerk: Yes.

    The Chair: Yvon, before I do, in case I've missed something, are you okay? You won't be able to put your point of order once Thomas is back here.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I would just like to clarify one point.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: If there are only two people nominated and we have an election, how will the election be conducted? I noticed certain things during the election in which I took part this morning. With all due respect, I must say that I do not think it was done properly, for the simple reason that normally, when there is an election, each party should delegate a scrutineer to monitor the vote results. I respect the people who will be doing this, but I think we need someone from each side to monitor the vote counting so that there are no doubts later on.

    The Chair: Did you want to comment on the same point, Michel?

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Absolutely.

    Mr. Chairman, I rarely disagree with my colleague from the NDP, but this time I must say that I do disagree, because I have total confidence in the neutrality of all the House clerks. If these elections are conducted by clerks of the House, there is no need for a scrutineer from each party. I think we would be overdoing it.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we would be overdoing it. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but we might not necessarily agree.

[English]

    The Chair: Let's not debate it. I'll ask Thomas, our clerk, to explain the procedure. You all realize this is a bit unusual, because I'm now in the chair and it's a resignation. If we were starting from scratch, it would be simpler.

    Thomas, do you want to explain the procedure, particularly with respect to scrutineers?

    The Clerk: The election will be conducted in imitation, if you will, of what goes on in the House. The clerk will preside over the election. There will be ballots handed out on each side. Members will come up, take a ballot, write the name here, and in secrecy put it in the box.

    The clerks will control the access to the box, one on each side. Then the two clerks will keep each other honest by counting the ballots. We are not allowed to divulge any information about the results of the vote whatsoever, except who has won, or if another ballot is required because no one has a majority.

    There is no provision in the Standing Orders for scrutineers, and there is none for the election of a Speaker in the House, as you know. But the whole thing is conducted in front of you, so you are all witnesses to what is going on.

    The Chair: Carolyn Parrish, briefly.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If the second vice-chair were to also resign, could you conduct both ballots at the same time?

    The Clerk: No. They are two separate positions.

    The Chair: Yvon, I don't see any consensus, but you've made your point.

    I'm going to step aside and the clerk will now conduct the election for the opposition vice-chair.

    The Clerk: Are there nominations for the position of vice-chair for the opposition?

    Monsieur Saada.

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.): I move that Dale Johnston be vice-chair.

    The Clerk: Are there any other motions?

    Mr. Johnston is re-elected.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Chair: Congratulations, Dale. We appreciate this.

    Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Due to the process that is taking place, integrity requires that I resign from my position as vice-chair of this committee. I therefore announce to you that the position is now vacant on the government side.

    The Chair: We appreciate it.

    I will step aside, and we'll have a vote for the vice-chair on the government side.

    The Clerk: Are there nominations for the position of vice-chair for the government?

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I nominate Jacques Saada.

    The Clerk: Are there other proposals?

    Mr. Schmidt.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): I would like to nominate Carolyn Parrish.

    The Clerk: Are there other proposals?

    Since there are two candidates proposed for vice-chair for the government, Mrs. Parrish and Monsieur Saada, we will now proceed to a secret ballot election.

    (Members vote by secret ballot)

    The Clerk: Mrs. Parrish has been elected vice-chair of the committee for the government.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Clerk: Mr. Adams, you may take the chair.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: Congratulations, Carolyn.

    Jacques, congratulations to you too. I thought it was the appropriate thing to do, so I really appreciate it.

    Point of order, Werner.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: I think we should express appreciation for the work Jacques has done. We often forget that just because things change in a committee, it doesn't mean it's a negative vote for a person. Too often, we take these things personally. There's nothing personal here at all, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a new member of the committee, and I think sometimes things have to happen the way they happen, and we should accept them with good grace.

    I want to thank Jacques, in particular. I got to know him a little bit and it's great. There's a new wind blowing in Parliament, and I think it's good to have this happen.

    Thank you.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Werner.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Chair: As you can see, I endorse that on behalf of the committee. We really appreciate it.

    There are a few items here before we get to the briefing on the ethics package. Thomas, you'll have to help me with this, because I'm the new chair and I'm not really sure what's going on.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: We have decided, with respect to the striking of a new legislative committee.... Do people have copies of this?

    The Clerk: No, they don't, that was just for you.

    The Chair: I'm going to read this to you because it has to do with the direction to us from the House.

On Tuesday of this week, the House commenced consideration of the motion to read Bill C-17 entitled An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, a second time--

    Please excuse the way I read that, but I think you can understand it.

--and to refer it to a legislative committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this Committee--

    That's our committee.

--must, within five sitting days from last Tuesday--that is, no later than Tuesday, November 19--meet to prepare a list of no more than 15 Members to serve on the legislative committee on Bill C-17. The Committee must report the list of names to the House by Thursday, November 21. The report is deemed adopted when it is presented.

Since the legislative committee constituted under this Standing Order must meet within two sitting days of the adoption of the second-reading motion, it is desirable to name the members of the legislative committee as soon as possible.

    So there are two things. We, as a committee, have to set up the legislative committee, and the whips have to submit names for that.

    Now, Thomas, do you want to explain....

    Werner.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: I have a question. This cannot be referred to a standing committee; it has to be a new committee created. Is that so?

    The Chair: That's my understanding. Thomas, is that right?

    The Clerk: Yes, that's the motion in the House.

    The Chair: It's a motion in the House to that effect, so it's a new legislative committee.

    Thomas, do you want to explain anything else?

    Colleagues, how do we proceed?

    The Clerk: We can either do it in the committee, or we can have the five whips sign off from the list of names, and we can put that in as a report from this committee in the usual way.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Thomas, have we submitted our names?

    The Clerk: Not that I know of.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Are we going to submit the names to you, Thomas?

    The Clerk: Yes.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: If it's agreeable, then the whips can just sign off on those names. It would be as simple as that, would it?

    The Clerk: Sure.

    The Chair: Okay. Do all whips agree with that?

    Some hon. members: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay, so the whips are going to sign off and you will submit the list to Thomas. Then the committee is deemed set up.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: On a point--

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: This is the public safety act. Did we not name people to this committee in the last Parliament?

    Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): That died with prorogation.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: So for all intents and purposes we will submit--at least from my party--the same names.

    Mr. James Robertson: Presumably, yes.

    The Chair: Is there anything else?

    This one has to do with our steering committee meeting the other day. It has to do with how we have agreed to handle our role in the change in riding boundaries.

    Again, Thomas, do people have this?

    The Clerk: They should.

    The Chair: Do you all have something called “Report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure”?

    A Voice: No.

    The Chair: I will read it again, although in this case it's not something I should read. It's actually a report. But, colleagues, the agreement we came to at the steering committee is that we will set up a permanent subcommittee that will deal with the submissions of the different regional boundary commissions as they come in. We expect them to start arriving in December, and we expect them to be staggered. They won't all come in at once. The committee has already circulated information to every member of Parliament on their rights when that happens. What it means is that when we, the committee, receive one of these commission reports, we will refer it to our subcommittee. Members of Parliament then have 30 days to reach that subcommittee and have to get the signatures of 10 colleagues in order to do that.

    Have people got them now?

Á  (1125)  

    The Clerk: My apologies. It was left out of my bag.

    The Chair: I'm going to read this.

Your Subcommittee met on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, to discuss the future business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendation:

That there be established a Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment, composed of six members, including one member from each of the five recognized parties in the House and a Chair to be named by the Committee;

    --after consultation with the appropriate whip--

That the Subcommittee be charged with carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Committee under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act; and

That the Subcommittee have all of the powers of the Committee under Standing Order 108(1)(a), except the power to report directly to the House.

    Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, my understanding of the past is that one of the filters that was used--and I don't know whether this was a regulatory filter or it was what the committee did--is that we chose members whose ridings weren't affected by the process. Is that the practice?

    The Chair: Jamie, go ahead.

    Mr. James Robertson: On the previous occasion in the 1990s, because all of the reports were tabled at the same time, there were regional committees set up: one for the eastern provinces, one for Quebec, one for Ontario, one for the western provinces. I guess at that point, because the objections were known before the subcommittees were established, the members who had submitted objections were not appointed to sit on the subcommittees.

    The proposal here would be to set up one subcommittee of this committee to hear objections. Presumably, if any of the members appointed to sit on that subcommittee were to file objections with respect to their constituency boundaries, they could withdraw and be substituted for that hearing.

    The Chair: Joe, that's the answer to your question.

    The other side dimension is we did discuss the possibility of having different subcommittees for each commission, and we decided against it.

    Okay, now, Thomas, what do you think I should do with this?

    Yvon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like a clarification, Mr. Chairman. If a member of the subcommittee wants to appear before the committee, he would have to be replaced by someone else, but only for that part of the meeting. He or she would then go back to sit on the subcommittee. Is that not correct?

[English]

    Mr. James Robertson: I think it would be more appropriate if the member withdrew from the consideration of the objections on which he or she was making submissions to the subcommittee.

    As with the subcommittee on private members' business, there is no procedural objection to a person being on a subcommittee and having a matter before the subcommittee, but if possible and if convenient--and some parties obviously have more members than others--it would be preferable if the member were to step aside during consideration of those objections in which he or she was making representations. But that's a policy, rather than a procedural rule.

    The Chair: With that in mind and with that on the record, would someone care to move concurrence in this report that I read out? Yvon Godin so moves.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The whips will please note that we need one member from each party to be on that subcommittee. There's no urgency. There's no urgency in this case.

    The last thing I have is to advise you that we are interested in procedure and changes of rules and that kind of thing, and electoral matters in general. There is an event here.... The Royal Commission of Canada is running an event called “Renewing Democracy: Debating Electoral Reform in Canada”. This will be held--and we'll send notices to your offices--on Tuesday, November 19, from seven until nine. That will be held...I don't see that it says where.

    Jamie, do we know?

    Mr. James Robertson: I believe it's the Chateau Laurier.

    The Chair: We think it's the Chateau Laurier, but that will be in the notice. So if you could just remember, those of you who are interested in electoral reform, it's Tuesday, November 19, from seven until nine, probably in the Chateau, but we'll confirm that, and it's the Royal Commission.... Yes, it's p.m., thank you very much. The lawyers don't get up that early, you know that. It's called “Renewing Democracy: Debating Electoral Reform in Canada”.

    Colleagues, we now proceed to agenda item C:

    “Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), consideration of matters related to the inclusion of a code of conduct in the Standing Orders of the House.”

    This again arises directly from the steering committee meeting the other day. We began the other day with our first public meeting on the ethics package. The first witness was the Deputy Prime Minister, John Manley. What we're discussing now is where we proceed from here and some background on this matter.

    I think you all have the materials before you. First is the table of contents.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. James Robertson: That's all we have.

    The Chair: Then we will look at a sheet of possible witnesses on the code of conduct.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): We don't have that.

    The Clerk: We're putting it out afterwards.

    The Chair: Okay, that's fine. The second sheet is being put out afterwards.

    Let's look at the table of contents. Margie and Jamie are going to conduct a session.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. James Robertson: I apologize for the confusion.

    The intent at this point is to give you a fairly general overview, an oral briefing, and explain where this package is coming from. At the end we will discuss some possible witnesses, as discussed at the steering committee.

    My name is Jamie Robertson. Margaret Young is another lawyer with the law and government division of the Parliamentary Research Branch. She worked on the Special Joint Committee on Conflict of Interest in 1991-93, the Blenkarn-Stanbury committee. She and I were the researchers with the Milliken-Oliver committee in 1995-97, which was the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct. We've been having a watching brief on conflict of interest and code of conduct over the last ten years or so. Our background is there.

    There are a number of materials that you either have or your offices will be receiving. The first is the package tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister. It's a draft amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act. The other is a draft of amendments to the Rules of the Senate and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

    The Privy Council Office has prepared a brief that was circulated to your offices last week. It is entitled “Ethics Commissioner: Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians, October 2002”. It includes the draft bill, the draft rules, as well as the clause-by-clause examination or discussion of the provisions contained in those documents. It also contains some comments on technical changes to implement the Milliken-Oliver report, as well as a copy of the Milliken-Oliver report itself.

    We will be circulating to your offices next week the briefing binder of which you have the table of contents today. It's going to be fairly thick, which is the reason we didn't actually bring it to the meeting today. It contains, again, the package. It contains a summary by Margaret Young of the package that was tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister. This summary was circulated to your offices electronically earlier this week. It will also be included in the package but it was sent to your officers earlier this week.

    There's also a current issue review in the package that traces the history and background of conflict of interest over the last 15 years or so. Margaret will be referring to some of the background and history of this issue.

    We have in there as well a summary of provincial and territorial conflict of interest regimes in Canada, a copy of the Prime Minister's code, and a copy of the provisions or procedures in the United Kingdom's House of Commons. There's also a short summary of the Commonwealth systems of conflict of interest. Most countries with a parliamentary type of system seem to have developed systems for the declaration of interests or registration of interest. This will be included in the binder.

    We are also preparing a summary of the American provisions, which will not be included in the briefing binder but will be circulated shortly. That explains how disclosure of conflict of interest works in the U.S. Congress--specifically the House of Representatives and Senate, as well as, to a lesser extent, the states, all of which have similar programs.

    With that, we'll go to Margaret.

    Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): The first document relevant for today is the paper that was sent electronically to your offices on Monday in preparation for Mr. Manley's appearance. It's called “The Parliamentary Ethics Initiative”. If the initiative were a bill, this would be called a legislative summary.

    Those of you who are familiar with the library's publications will recognize the format. Part one is draft amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. It explains what they are clause by clause. Part two is the draft code of conduct. In the section, I tried to give a little background to put it into context, but essentially it proceeds section by section.

    I would draw your attention to the commentary. There are two parts to the commentary. Part A draws to your attention the most significant differences between the proposed code and the Oliver-Milliken report. Most of you, certainly those of you who were present at the meeting with Mr. Manley, are well aware of some of the differences.

    I've singled out five differences. There are others. The five I have singled out are the appointment of the ethics commissioner, the term of the commissioner, the question of spouses, and the question of complaints to the commissioner, whether it should be from the public or only parliamentarians. Then there is something I think is of interest, although it is a technical point. It's the difference in the drafting of the rules under Milliken-Oliver and under the proposed code.

    I've given you some examples of how they differ. In a nutshell, Oliver-Milliken is a little wider in the sense that it implicitly covers attempts, whereas the proposed code is more direct. You actually would have to do more to be caught by the rules. I'll leave it with you.

    The second matter is the question of the committee. In the section, I point out that the provincial models do not have committees. The proposed code does have an oversight committee that would also have investigatory powers. This was taken from the U.K. model. You might want to think about the relationship between the ethics commissioner and the committee. It's an important point.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Is it to this point, Werner?

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, it's to the committee. There are two committees, I believe, the Senate committee and the House of Commons committee.

    Ms. Margaret Young: Yes, you're right.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Were you referring to both committees?

    Ms. Margaret Young: Yes. There could be one committee.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Right.

    Ms. Margaret Young: A joint committee is a possibility. Another possibility is a committee of the Senate and a committee of the House.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Right. There is the possibility of three different organizations with two separate committees and the Parliament committee. Would that be possible?

    Ms. Margaret Young: No.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay, it is either two or one.

    Ms. Margaret Young: Right.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Margaret, go ahead.

    Ms. Margaret Young: Okay.

    The next thing, as Jamie referred to, is the current issue review. This has been a very longstanding publication of the Parliamentary Research Branch. It's called “Conflict of Interest Rules for Federal Legislators”. It probably tells you more than you want to know about the background to this issue. It explains what conflict of interest typically is, the kinds of interests that are generally discussed under this rubric, and the methods of controlling and approaching them.

    It also very briefly gives you some information about the various reports and task forces that reported in the mid-1980s. There's one section on parliamentary action detailing what Parliament has done, including the four bills under the Mulroney government, etc.

    It's interesting to note that CIRs, current issue reviews, at the Parliamentary Research Branch always have a chronology section at the back. This one is three and a quarter pages long, which tells you something in itself.

    Now over to Jamie, who will talk about the provinces document.

    Mr. James Robertson: All jurisdictions in Canada, both federal and provincial, have laws that set out certain things you're not allowed to do if you're a member of Parliament. In addition, there are certain laws, like the Criminal Code, that apply to federal and provincial legislators.

    In considering whether a system such as that being proposed in the tabled package is a good idea or not, often people want to know what is done in the provinces. It should be noted that all the provinces except Quebec have a system for disclosure and registration of personal interests, business interests, and so forth.

    Quebec has a very different system. It is perhaps partly because of the civil law system there and the fact that they have not adopted the same statutory approach. In Quebec there is a jurisconsult. It is the term that was used in the Milliken-Oliver report. The jurisconsult provides advice and is available for consultation by members of the National Assembly.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: But he or she is not an officer of the National Assembly. No, it's private, period. Thank you.

    Mr. James Robertson: There is no disclosure per se. That is not to say that there aren't rules and regulations about conflicts of interest, but they are not contained in the same package or code, as is done in other provinces and territories--and, it would be proposed, at the federal level.

    All of the provinces and territories provide for disclosure of personal interests. Most of them require confidential disclosure followed by a public summary. The public summary does not include certain kinds of interests. It also does not include financial amounts or details about how much your shares may be worth in a particular company. It's a summary of your assets and liabilities.

    An hon. member: So what about spouses?

    Mr. James Robertson: I'll come to that in a moment.

    All of the provinces except Nova Scotia and Manitoba have an officer of the legislature who is charged with being the person you register with, you disclose to, who provides advice to members of the legislature, and in most cases prepares the public summary, and who makes investigations if necessary.

    In Nova Scotia the person who is involved with doing so is a member of the judiciary. Rather than having a legislative parliamentary officer, they have a judicial officer, a judge. In Manitoba there is no specific person, but there is judicial overview of the administration of the system.

    With respect to spouses, most, if not all, of them involve a certain amount of disclosure, at least on a confidential basis, of spousal interests and assets and liabilities. I think it's all of them and the summary has it listed. But I'm pretty sure that virtually all of them except, again, Quebec, because of its different system, provide for disclosure of spousal interests.

    Now, in most cases there is limited public disclosure of what is actually disclosed or registered by the spouse.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik on this point.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: On this point, and I know we're going to get an awful lot of opportunity to discuss it, but you keep using the term “confidential”, and then you say that it would be a limited public disclosure.

    As I understand the proposed draft that we have now, it's much more public than what it would be in the provinces. Would that be a fair statement?

    Mr. James Robertson: No, I think it's very similar. You disclose everything to the ethics commissioner and then a summary of that disclosure is what is put on the public record.

    Looking through this very quickly, there are some provinces, such as Nova Scotia, the Yukon, where there is no confidential disclosure. Everything is done publicly. But most provinces and the proposed federal regime would be confidential disclosure of everything, followed by a limited public disclosure after that.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, thank you.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. James Robertson: All of them, as I say, have commissioners with the exception of Manitoba and Nova Scotia, which have court officers or court involvement. None of them has a committee that oversees the conflict of interest commissioner, ethics councillor, whatever he is called.

    In all cases they are also mono-cameral--they are one chambered. They're not two chambers like the federal Parliament. All of the commissioners will investigate at the request of the legislature, or members of the legislature, and they report to the legislature directly. They do not table their report or file their report with any committee, which then passes on the report to the legislature. That's something that, as we will discuss in a few minutes, comes more from other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and various other countries. But it's not the model followed by the provinces in Canada.

    The Chair: In the binder--whenever we have hearings on this matter, I urge everybody to bring their binder with them--it's laid out as a table and it's possible to compare them very quickly.

    Mr. James Robertson: The only other point I will make is that for most of the provinces their code of conduct is first of all statutory. Most of them provide for a member to declare if they have a specific conflict of interest with respect to a specific matter coming before the legislature and to withdraw from consideration during that discussion--consideration--and to not vote on it.

    The disclosure of interest is a general one. It's usually done on an annual basis or when there are changes or after an election, but the actual declaration with respect to a specific conflict of interest happens on a case-by-case basis when a particular matter, whether it's a bill or a study, comes before the legislature or a committee.

    That is implicit, I think, in the federal code in the sense that the existing standing order about pecuniary interests would continue to apply. But there's no specific provision for a member to get up and say, I will not participate on this discussion because I have a conflict of interest.

    The Chair: This is very interesting. We're in the hands of the committee, but I think the best thing is to take this through so we have a sense of it.

    Members were asked, and obviously you should respond, but I would urge you all, let's get our heads around the process.

    I'm going to turn the chair over to Dale in a few minutes because I have to leave, but when you get to the list of witnesses, which is important, and the design of it, the idea here is for us to get our heads around it and work on this binder. Everybody must work on it. We're going to continue with this thing in a moment. Then we have to think, as a steering committee, about the witnesses. We are still negotiating with the witnesses, but our first meeting when we come back will be with the first witness or set of witnesses on this list.

    Jamie, do you want to continue?

    Rick, are you okay with what I'm saying here? Jamie was responding to your request and that's fine, but there will be other occasions when you can do that with witnesses here.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. James Robertson: One of the issues that has arisen is how a conflict of interest regime with a commissioner interacts with parliamentary privilege. Margaret will address that issue.

    The Chair: Go ahead, yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Since you are changing tabs, I would like to know whether we could have a chart that shows the codes in effect in the 10 provinces and 3 territories so that we can compare them easily.

    The Chair: It's in the very large binder.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine.

    My second comment is this. Perhaps it is just a translation problem. At tab 5, the French version refers to "Le Canada provincial". I would like to know where "provincial Canada" is located. The tab reads as follows: "La réglementation des conflits d'intérêts dans les provinces et territoires du Canada provincial". Where is "provincial Canada" located?

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Michel.

[English]

    Ms. Margaret Young: We'll fix it, Mr. Chair.

    At tab six, you will see a very short paper that deals with the question of what role the courts could play vis-à-vis the ethics commissioner. The Milliken-Oliver committee was concerned that in dealing with parliamentarians under the code, the courts not basically have free reign to come in and tell the ethics commissioner what's appropriate and what's not appropriate.

    At tab six, there are two cases where in fact people have gone to court to try to obtain judicial review over the actions or the report of an ethics or conflict of interest commissioner. In the first case it was the press wanting access to the private conduct of an inquiry by the British Columbia commissioner for conflict of interest. In the second one it was an aggrieved legislator who had been unhappy about the process and the final report.

    In both cases the courts held that the actions of the commissioner fell within parliamentary privilege and therefore were not open to judicial review. This was for a number of reasons: he was an officer of Parliament; he didn't make any decisions himself; it was the legislature that made any decisions on sanctions; and so on.

    So those cases are presented for your consideration, and I think you can draw two conclusions from them. One is that with regard to the code of conduct for parliamentarians, the second part of this, because of the structure of the ethics commissioner's reporting relationship to the committee, taking instruction to the committee, that very close nexus and the reporting basically through the committee to Parliament, that would be entirely protected by parliamentary privilege and would not be open to judicial review.

    On the other hand, when the ethics commissioner puts on the other hat and investigates a complaint against a cabinet minister, for example, with regard to the rules, obligations, ethical principles established by the Prime Minister, that would not be the case. Judicial review could be obtained.

    So there is a difference in the structure. This ethics commissioner is a novel officer. He definitely wears at least two hats.

    So that's tab six. At tab eight, we've put in a short paper on standards of conduct in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. This was put in for your reference because at the time that the Milliken-Oliver committee was doing its work, this was a very hot topic in the U.K. It had begun with a pretty nasty scandal in 1992 called the “cash for questions” scandal that Mr. Manley referred to on Tuesday. That led to the establishment of a committee and ultimately to a code of conduct, the establishment and appointment of a parliamentary commissioner for standards, and an oversight committee. That was all in place by 1996 and is functioning now.

    That's history. Why is it relevant now? Well, if you're going to look for antecedents to the code for parliamentarians, I think on the principles and purposes there are a number of them, including the Prime Minister's code. We drew heavily from the provinces, and the U.K. principles were important as well. But that's on the one side. When it comes to the enforcement mechanism, the institution of a committee, that was drawn very strongly from the U.K. model because that was what was happening at the time. So it's a bit of a hybrid, certainly in the Canadian context, and this paper will help you understand why that's so.

    As appendices, we have put various references as to how the U.K. model works, and the opening part is just a very brief summary of what their system consists of.

    Jamie.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. James Robertson: The last thing we'll just very briefly touch on is international comparisons. We have a paper that is just in the process of being finalized, and it deals with Commonwealth jurisdictions: Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and its various component parts, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. They basically follow more of the British model, which is to have a committee of the legislature that is responsible for this. There is generally a registration of interest with the clerk or with an officer of the legislature. The only one that does not have that is New Zealand, which does not appear to have a structured system of disclosure and registration, but all of the rest have this.

    They differ from the Canadian model in that they do not have statutes in setting out a code of conduct. They have rules of their legislature—either rules requiring disclosure or registration, or rules that talk about what you have to report. Again, there is provision for complaints and for investigation of complaints by the commission or by other people.

    This summary contains, at the back, a fairly useful table that sets out in chart form what the comparisons are in the different legislatures.

    The spousal disclosure issue is variable. Some of them have it, some of them don't. Some have it for some aspects and not for other aspects. The definitions of “spouse” and “dependants” are variable, depending on the jurisdiction.

    With that, we should probably close. If there are any specific questions, we'd be happy to answer them, and then there is a list of proposed witnesses that perhaps can be distributed.

Á  (1155)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Yvon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Will you be giving us some documentation on the subjects you have just been discussing? We will be getting all that, will we not?

[English]

    Mr. James Robertson: Yes, and that will all be included in the binders. I apologize for not having the binders here, but because of their size, it would seem easier to distribute them to the members' offices. I'm just giving you an overview of what information will be in there, so that when you get it you'll be able to focus in on those areas of interest.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Jamie, you obviously list your assets, but do you list your liabilities as well?

    Mr. James Robertson: Yes. In both systems, they talk primarily of assets, but obviously liabilities are equally important, whether you have mortgages or whether you have debts of a certain amount. Again, though, only a summary of those are made available if they come within the definition of what has to be reported to the public.

    Ordinarily, your home, your principal residence, and your mortgage on that would not be available or necessary for the public to know about. If you have in fact borrowed $100,000 from somebody so you can buy shares in a company, though, that becomes relevant in terms of transparency and accountability.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): I would think that.

    Werner.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Will we be discussing the composition of or the interests in self-directed RRSPs?

    Ms. Margaret Young: Yes, we will. As you go through the code—

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: That will come up in the committee.

    Ms. Margaret Young: Put it this way, if an asset is not exempt from disclosure and would otherwise have to be disclosed, and if it's in a self-directed RRSP, that will not shield it. Under the proposal, that would still have to be disclosed.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: My interest is whether we get into that now or get into it later.

    Mr. James Robertson: That gets into the definitions section of the proposed code, and presumably after hearing witnesses—

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: I just want to make sure it's not there, because there's a big question there.

    Ms. Margaret Young: I would suggest that the witnesses who would be of the most help in working through that kind of question—in other words, apart from what the proposal says—would be the provincial conflict-of-interest commissioners. They're the people who do this on a day-to-day basis. We would be inviting those who's statutes are very similar. If you have specific concerns relating to how that is handled, that would be a question for them.

    We could tell you that, yes, a “something” would require disclosure. For example, I'll mention two situations, if I could. If you have Canada savings bonds in a self-directed RRSP, they wouldn't have to be disclosed because they don't have to be disclosed publicly in any case. However, if you have shares in a corporation of whatever kind, they are subject to public disclosure. Notwithstanding that they might be in a self-directed RRSP, they would have to be disclosed.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Yes, on the acquisition of shares, I would think if you had shares in let's say Air Canada and you're on the transport committee making decisions that would affect whether or not Air Canada had a monopoly, then not only what you have in those shares at the time but what you acquire later would be pretty significant, wouldn't it?

    Ms. Margaret Young: That's the assumption that the code would make.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: That was one of the questions. The other one--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Rick had a question.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, and there are literally a hundred questions. I don't think this is the time or place. There are witnesses, and I think there are other opportunities to have this sort of round table as to where we should be heading on this.

    As one very quick question and maybe a very quick answer, one adds to an asset base and deletes assets on a fairly regular basis. How is it assumed in here that you're going to make those changes to a declaration on a regular basis?

    Ms. Margaret Young: Material changes would be filed within an appropriate time period with the ethics commissioner.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The definition of material changes is something we can look at, certainly.

    Really, we have hundreds of questions.

    An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]...changing your wife.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, that may well be an issue as well. If Joe wants to change his wife, if that's the case and there is spousal declaration, what happens there?

  (1200)  

    Mr. Geoff Regan: You'll be in trouble for that comment.

    An hon. member: It was never...[Inaudible—Editor]

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I think Rick was saying that today we really are talking about the process and how we're going forward, and that while we're anxious to get into those substantive issues, we ought to restrain ourselves from that, even though I'm keen to discuss them.

    Mr. James Robertson: All of these things are on the table when you are bringing in a code of conduct. There's the question of what is disclosed, whether it's liabilities, assets, and the extent of the disclosure, both confidentially and publicly; what is exempted from public disclosure because it is considered not to be as important or relevant; how much information is made available publicly--do you want to know how many shares in Air Canada or whether you just have shares in Air Canada; the question of how often and when changes have to be reported; the work involved in making those change reports; and the question on the part of the member, the issue has been raised, do members need additional resources in their budgets to deal with this? There's the question of whether the commissioner will have to have staff and what sort of staff to assess these things and process these changes. These are all things that will have to be discussed by the committee in its deliberations.

    There is a question, too, that if you do get into spousal disclosure, can you have more than one spouse--can you delete spouses and add spouses and everything else? But you might be able to avoid those issues.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Yes, let's hope we can.

    Is there any other business?

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Do we need to improve this list, Dale, or...?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Has this list been circulated? Did everybody get a list of the witnesses?

    Actually, this is just simply what the subcommittee has suggested as a witness list. I don't think it's exhaustive. I think it can be added to.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, the question I have is what were the criteria used in selecting the academics?

    Mr. James Robertson: These are people who have written in the area of conflict of interest or ethics, and in many cases they are people who appeared before the previous committees on these issues. They're primarily political science professors, but certainly it's not an exhaustive list by any means. So if any other members have names to suggest, I think they should be submitted to the clerk or the chair.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, on that point, in terms of former MPs, I think it's very appropriate, and I see that Gordon Earle's name is here.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: A very good MP.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Guimond points out what a good MP he was. Obviously he has some questions about his successor.

    Mr. James Robertson: Mr. Earle's name is there because Mr. Earle tabled a private member's bill while he was an MP, based on the Milliken-Oliver committee.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I think we're aware of that, and as I say, that is quite appropriate.

    I wonder if you might contact the Association of Former Parliamentarians to ask them to consult their members, make them aware, so that those who are interested might come forward and express their interest in speaking to the committee about--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Not a bad idea.

    Rick.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just for the information of the other members of the committee, it was also suggested that once we get into the witnesses, Senator Oliver, for example, may well have some other suggestions of people who he feels would be best to be brought forward to help our committee in its deliberations as well. So there will be other names, I suppose, going forward.

    One of the other things, if I can just add for the other members, is that there was an issue with the timeline here. I think Mr. Manley had indicated it's important but not crucial that this thing be compressed into a timeline before Christmas. So we do have time to work on other witnesses to come forward as well. I just want that on the table.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Agreed.

    Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Could we use videoconferences in order to hear from as many people as possible who would like to testify on this matter? We will not have time to travel, and in any case, this committee does not travel much. With videoconferences, we could hear about the views of various provinces and perhaps even the United Kingdom, if we could use this technology fairly easily and if the cost is not too high. We could adjust our sitting times. We know there is five hours' difference between Canada and the U.K. We could meet at 7 or 8 a.m., which would still be during working hours in the United Kingdom. That is just a suggestion for improving the way we work.

    M. James Robertson: That is a good idea.

[English]

    The idea of the chair and the steering committee was to try to group the witnesses by panels of people, as opposed to having one witness per meeting. Certainly in the case of people like the provincial ethics commissioners, the conflict of interest commissioners, it would be appropriate to have a panel of them at one meeting.

    Some of them may be unable to get to Ottawa because of other responsibilities or the timeframes, and certainly video-conferencing is permitted. I know the House administration has long been encouraging committees to use it more. This would be a good opportunity to take advantage of the technology the House has and wants to use more often.

  (1205)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Is there any further business?

    We're adjourned, at the call of the chair.

    Thank you.